ORAU Team

NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project

Technical Basis Document for the Hanford Site --

Occupational Medical Dose

Document Number: 

ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 

Effective Date: 09/16/2003

Revision No.: 00

Controlled Copy No.: ________

Page 1 of 34

Subject Expert: Edward D. Scalsky

Approval: _Signature on File____________ Date: 09/17/2003 Judson L. Kenoyer, Task 3 Manager

Concurrence: _Signature on File_________ Date: 09/17/2003 Richard E. Toohey, Project Director

Approval: ____Signature on File_________ Date: 09/17/2003 James W. Neton, OCAS Health Science Administrator

Supersedes:

None

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section

Record of Issue/Revisions ...................................................................................................................

Page

3

Acronyms and Abbreviations ...............................................................................................................4

3.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................. 5

3.2 Technical Factors Affecting Diagnostic X-Ray Dose ................................................................... 5

3.2.1 Applied Kilovoltage and Filtration ....................................................................................5

3.2.2 Current and Exposure Time.............................................................................................7

3.2.3 Distance ..........................................................................................................................8

3.2.4 Collimation and Waveform Characteristics ...................................................................... 8

3.2.5 Screens, Grids, and Other Factors Potentially Affecting Worker Dose............................. 8

3.3 Diagnostic X-Ray Doses to Hanford Workers, 1943 to Date ....................................................... 9

3.3.1 Doses From 14” × 17” PA Chest Radiography............................................................... 11

3.3.2 Lateral 14” × 17” Chest Radiography............................................................................. 12

3.3.3 Chest Photofluorography............................................................................................... 14

3.4 Uncertainty Analysis for Hanford Radiography Doses............................................................... 15

References ........................................................................................................................................31

Glossary ............................................................................................................................................34
Effective Date: 09/16/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 2 of 34

LIST OF TABLES

Table

3-1 Relationship of beam intensity and various technical factors...............................................

Page

17

3-2 Summary of beam parameters for 14" × 17" PA chest radiography..................................... 18

3-3 Average absorbed chest X-ray dose (mGy) for selected organs for 1 Gy 

entrance kerma (air kerma without backscatter) for a beam quality of 2.5 mm 

aluminum (HVL) .................................................................................................................. 19

3-4 Average absorbed chest X-ray dose (mGy) for selected organs for 1 Gy 

entrance kerma (air kerma without backscatter) for a beam quality of 4.0 mm 

aluminum (HVL) .................................................................................................................. 20

3-5 Organ dose estimates for Hanford chest radiographs before 2/1/1946................................ 21

3-6 Organ dose estimates for Hanford chest radiographs from 2/1/46 to 4/12/59 ...................... 21

3-7 Organ dose estimates for Hanford chest radiographs from 4/12/59 to 1/28/83 .................... 22

3-8 Organ dose estimates for Hanford chest radiographs from 1/28/83 to 3/30/90 .................... 22

3-9 Organ dose estimates for Hanford chest radiographs from 3/30/90 to 4/22/97 .................... 23

3-10 Organ dose estimates for Hanford chest radiographs from 4/22/97 to 2/4/98 ...................... 23

3-11 Organ dose estimates for Hanford chest radiographs from 2/4/98 to present ...................... 24

3-12 Average absorbed dose from chest photofluorography (mGy) for selected 

organs for 1 Gy entrance kerma (air kerma without backscatter) for a beam 

quality of 2.5 mm aluminum (HVL) ...................................................................................... 24

3-13 Organ dose estimates for Hanford photofluorography March 1945 to 1/31/1962................. 25

3-14 Summary of parameters and organ doses for Hanford 14" × 17" PA chest 

radiography ......................................................................................................................... 26

3-14 (Continued) Summary of dose for IREP organs not listed in ICRP 34 (1982) ...................... 27

3-15 Summary of parameters and organ doses for Hanford lateral chest radiography ................ 28

3-15 (Continued) Summary of dose for IREP organs not listed in ICRP 34 (1982) ...................... 29

3-16 Summary of parameters and organ doses for Hanford 4" × 5" chest 

photofluorography ............................................................................................................... 30

3-16 (Continued) Summary of dose for IREP organs not listed in ICRP 34 (1982) ...................... 30
Effective Date: 09/16/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 3 of 34

RECORD OF ISSUE/REVISIONS

ISSUE 

AUTHORIZATION 

DATE

EFFECTIVE 

DATE

REV. 

NO. DESCRIPTION

09/16/2003 09/16/2003 00 First approved issue of the technical basis document, 

Section 3, for the Hanford Site. Initiated by Edward D. 

Scalsky
Effective Date: 09/16/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 4 of 34

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

cm centimeter

DF dose conversion factor

EEOICPA Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000

ESE entrance skin exposure

Gy gray

HVL half value layer

ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection

ICRU International Commission on Radiological Units

IREP Interactive RadioEpidemiological Program

kVp Peak Kilovoltage, applied kilovoltage

Lat lateral

mA Milliampere

mAs milliampere-second

mm Millimeter

NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

PA posterior-anterior

R roentgen

RMS root mean square

SID source to image distance

SSD source to skin distance
Effective Date: 09/16/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 5 of 34

3.1 INTRODUCTION

Diagnostic X-ray procedures were an additional contributor to the occupational radiation exposure of 

Hanford workers. In general, the dose from these exposures was neither measured nor considered or 

included as part of the overall occupational exposure of the employee, although it clearly was 

occupationally related. With the passage of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA), diagnostic medical X-rays administered in 

conjunction with routine or special physical examinations required for employment were recognized as 

a valid source of occupational exposure. Unlike occupational exposures incurred during normal work 

processes, individual diagnostic medical X-ray exposures were not monitored, necessitating 

reconstruction of the doses acquired in this manner. This report describes the technical aspects of 

dose reconstruction from medical X-rays administered prior to employment and periodically thereafter 

as a condition of employment. 

3.2 TECHNICAL FACTORS AFFECTING DIAGNOSTIC X-RAY DOSE

A number of factors determine the dose to workers from a diagnostic X-ray procedure. For a more or 

less standard medical radiographic (i.e., diagnostic) unit with a tungsten target (anode) and focal spot 

of 1-2 mm, these include the basic machine settings used for the exposure, which include the applied 

kilovoltage of the beam (kVp), beam current (mA), time of exposure, distance, waveform, amount and 

kind of filtration used, collimation or use of diaphragms, tube housing characteristics, type and speed 

of the film, development procedure, screens, grids, and the size of the worker. While this list of 

factors looks formidable, in the absence of direct measurements of the beam itself, which are rarely 

available, the dose to the worker can be estimated with a reasonable degree of accuracy with 

knowledge of only the three basic machine parameters (applied kilovoltage, current, and time) and 

assumptions about filtration, collimation, and waveform characteristics. The implications of these 

factors to worker dose are discussed below.

3.2.1

The energy of the X-ray beam is determined by the applied kilovoltage and the filtration, and is 

sometimes referred to as beam quality. X-rays, as produced in a typical medical X-ray tube, are 

bremsstrahlung and, as such, are a distribution or spectrum of energies ranging from zero to the 

applied kilovoltage, which refers to the potential between the anode and cathode of the tube. For a 

typical unfiltered X-ray spectrum, the average energy is about one-third of the peak energy, or applied 

kilovoltage. Hence, most of the X-rays produced are much lower in energy than the applied 

kilovoltage of the beam, and are attenuated by the torso or other portion of the body being 

radiographed and never reach the film. These X-rays are of little value in radiography but contribute 

significantly to worker dose.

Applied Kilovoltage and Filtration

To reduce the dose to the worker, filtration in the form of a specified thickness of absorbing material is 

added to the beam. This has the net effect of absorbing a large fraction of the lower energy X-rays 

that are of little or no value in making the radiograph while allowing most of the more energetic and 

radiographically useful X-ray photons to pass. In this manner, the dose to the worker is reduced 

significantly and radiographic quality might be enhanced. A filtered X-ray spectrum has a 

correspondingly higher average energy than before it was filtered, although the photon fluence rate is 

much reduced. Such a beam is said to have been hardened. A corollary to this filtration technique is 

to use a higher applied kilovoltage and to filter the beam relatively heavily to eliminate most of the lowenergy radiographically useless photons from reaching the worker. 
Effective Date: 09/16/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 6 of 34

Beam energy is specified in terms of quality, or hardness, which in turn can be in terms of the half 

value layer (HVL) in aluminum. Unfortunately, this parameter is seldom available. Even if it is known, 

it is of limited value, in part because it does not specify the maximum energy of the beam or its true 

quality because, as the HVL measurement is made, the absorbers act as filters and the beam is 

further hardened. Thus, the first HVL is always smaller than the second, which in turn is smaller than 

the third, and so forth. What is commonly, although not always, available is the kVp of the machine 

and the external or added filtration. All X-ray tubes have so-called inherent filtration, which is the 

window or port of the tube. In medical diagnostic units, the window is thin, typically equivalent to 0.5 

mm Al in attenuation and hence provides little beam hardening.

Although the benefits of filtration with respect to improved radiographic images were known and 

understood as early as March 1896, within months of the discovery of X-rays (Magie 1896), diagnostic 

radiographs were initially made with no added filtration. Recommendations, albeit not specific as to 

thickness, were made in 1937 by the International Committee for Radiological Units, which specified 

aluminum filters for X-rays of 20 to 120 kVp, which incorporated the diagnostic X-ray energy range 

(ICRU 1937). Typical external filtration in the 1940s ranged from none to 1 mm Al. This was in line 

with the 1936 recommendations of the U.S. Advisory Committee on X-Ray and Radium Protection, 

which later became the NCRP, which called for 0.5 mm of Al equivalent for radiographic installations, 

and 1mm Al for fluoroscopy (NBS1936). The NCRP recommended 1 mm Al filtration for radiography 

of thick parts of the body such as the chest in 1949 (NBS1949) and this thickness was used during 

World War II in 100 mA units in larger military hospitals, and hence presumably at Hanford as well 

(Olson, Trask and Dessen 1966). Recommended thicknesses were later increased; in 1955, the 

NCRP recommendation for diagnostic X-ray units called for 2-mm total Al filtration for new machines 

(NBS 1955). This increased again in 1968 to 2.5 mm for medical diagnostic units operating above 70 

kVp (NCRP 1968). For operating machines, these recommended filter thicknesses might not have 

been used for some time after the date of the recommendation.

The relationship of beam intensity1 to applied kVp and filtration is complex and to some extent 

machine-specific and hence is best determined empirically. However, in the absence of empirical 

data for a specific machine, adequate contemporary empirical and theoretical data exist upon which to 

determine machine output within a reasonable degree of uncertainty. Additional filtration reduces the 

entrance skin exposure2

I = Ioe-0.4t

(ESE), generally in an exponential manner. For a typical single-phase, half-, 

full-, or self-rectified machine operating in the diagnostic range of 80 to 100 kVp, each additional 

millimeter of Al filtration will effect a reduction of about 40% in the ESE (Trout, Kelley, and Cathey 

1952; Taylor 1957). Thus, the approximate intensity reduction afforded by any thickness of Al 

filtration can be determined by the following exponential equation:

or

ln (I/Io) = -0.4 t

 

1. As used herein, beam intensity refers to the output of the machine in terms of exposure in the special sense per mAs. 

Exposure in the special sense is referenced to ionization in air and, as such, is not a dose quantity. 

2. Throughout this document, italics will be used to differentiate exposure in the special sense from exposure in the 

general sense. Thus exposure refers to exposure in the special sense. A brief discussion of exposure in both the general 

and special sense can be found in numerous publications, including NCRP Report 82 (1985) and ICRU Report 60 (1998). It 

is important to note that the definition and application of the quantity exposure and its concomitant unit the roentgen have 

undergone several important modifications over the years which have been documented throughout the literature.
Effective Date: 09/16/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 7 of 34

where t is the thickness of Al in millimeters, and I and Io are the beam intensities with and without the 

filter, respectively. In the absence of specific measurements or empirical data, this correction can be 

applied to determine the effect of filtration on beam intensity and is consistent with the guidance in 

Revision 1 to OCAS-IG-001, “External Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline” (August 

2002).

Similarly, increasing the kVp will increase the beam intensity or exposure rate. This can be calculated 

using Kramer’s rule, but such calculations are difficult, complex, and time-consuming, even with highspeed computers, and are at best approximations. However, many empirical studies of beam 

intensity as a function of kVp provide ample credible evidence to show that for a given amount of 

filtration, increasing the applied kVp will increase the beam intensity according to the 1.7 power of the 

applied kilovoltage (Handloser 1951; Trout, Kelley, and Cathey 1952; Kathren 1965; BRH 1970). In 

the absence of specific measurements or empirical data, this function can be applied to determine the 

effect of applied kilovoltage on beam intensity, and is fully consistent with the guidance in Revision 1 

to OCAS-IG-001, “External Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline” (August 2002).

3.2.2

Diagnostic X-ray exposures are typically specified in terms of milliampere-seconds (mAs), the product 

of X-ray tube current and exposure time. Thus, all factors being equal (e.g., kVp, filtration, film, 

development and screen combination), radiation exposure is proportional to the number of mAs. The 

current in an X-ray tube refers to the number of electrons accelerated across the evacuated volume of 

the tube, flowing from the cathode to the anode. For a given applied kilovoltage, the number of X-ray 

photons produced, and hence the exposure, will, at least in theory, be directly proportional to the Xray tube current; this is and has been true for most medical radiography units over their design tube 

current range. Data from beam measurements made with medical radiographic X-ray units at 

Hanford over the years are indicative of this linearity. Thus, in the absence of measurements or other 

data or information to the contrary, it is reasonable and consistent with long-standing radiographic 

practice (Sante 1946) to assume linearity of exposure with tube current for a given kVp and filtration.

Current and Exposure Time

Exposure time refers to the time that the beam was on or the machine was producing X-rays and is, 

for all practical purposes, linear with exposure. To avoid or minimize image blurring from the beating 

heart, exposure time for chest Radiography was minimized, and the current concomitantly and 

proportionately increased to obtain the desired exposure in terms of mAs. However, from a dose 

reconstruction standpoint, earlier medical radiographic units were equipped with mechanical timers 

whose accuracy was not as good as the electronic timers used on later apparatus. Gross bias errors 

in timer accuracy are unlikely in that these would result in over- or underexposure of the radiograph 

and so would be quickly detected and corrected. More subtle are small random errors, which might 

produce uncertainties of perhaps +20% in the exposure. However, measurement data, albeit limited, 

from the Hanford medical X-ray units give no indication or suggestion that the time or exposure 

parameters might be subject to error. 

Chest photofluorography, which resulted in much greater worker doses than a standard radiographic 

procedure, was used for a relatively short period at Hanford. Photofluorography used a smaller film (4 

× 5 inches), a smaller source to skin distance (SSD) (42 inches), and both a higher kVp and typically a 

several-fold greater exposure in terms of mAs. Exposure was regulated by photometers, which 

utilized exposure to the film to determine the time of exposure. 
Effective Date: 09/16/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 8 of 34

3.2.3

X-ray beam intensity is a function of distance from the target, approximating the inverse square at 

large distances from the tube. Radiographic chest films were taken at a standard source to image 

distance (SID)

Distance

3

3.2.4

of 72 inches; the source refers to the focal spot of the tube and the image to the plane 

of the film. The distance to the worker, who was between the source and the film cassette, 

sometimes expressed in terms of the SSD, was somewhat smaller and, hence, the ESE to the worker 

was somewhat greater than the exposure at the plane of the film. In addition, patient attenuation 

would further reduce or attenuate the number of photons reaching the film. To compensate for the 

increased attenuation provided by a larger worker, X-ray technicians would sometimes increase the 

beam settings or, if the machine was so equipped, might use a high-speed Bucky diaphragm, 

probably with a somewhat higher kVp. Thus, it might be appropriate for an individual dose 

reconstruction to increase the ESE for a large or stout worker. Based on standard contemporary 

techniques (Picker 1941; Fuchs 1958; Cahoon 1961) for workers with a chest thickness of 25 to 27 

cm, an increase of +50% from the ESE to the average worker should be sufficiently conservative; for

still larger workers, a factor of 2 would be appropriate. 

Among other factors that could affect worker dose are collimation and waveform. X-ray waveforms 

are of three types: half wave rectified, which is almost never seen; full wave rectified, which is typical 

of medical radiographic units and characteristic of the units used at Hanford; and constant potential. 

A half wave rectified machine produces 60 half-sinusoidal shape pulses of X-rays per second, each 

with a duration of 1/120 of a second. A full wave rectified machine produces 120 half-sinusoidal 

pulses per second, each with a duration of 1/120 second. Thus, for a given setting of kVp and mA, 

the intensity of the beam from a half wave rectified machine is half that of the beam from the full wave 

rectified type. A constant potential machine produces a more or less steady (i.e., unpulsed) output of 

X-rays and has a somewhat greater beam intensity – approximately 10% – compared with a full wave 

rectified machine operating at the same kVp and mA. For Hanford, waveform is of no significance 

with respect to retrospective determination of worker exposure because actual output measurement 

data are available. 

Collimation and Waveform Characteristics

Collimation refers to the size of beam. The early philosophy was to use a fairly large aperture with 

limited collimation to ensure that the entire area of interest was included in the radiograph. Later, 

because of protection concerns, beams were collimated such that the smallest beam consistent with 

the area of interest was used, thereby limiting the area of the patient exposed and, in the case of 

chest radiography, minimizing dose to organs such as gonads, thyroid, and gastrointestinal tract. A 

practical check of collimation can be made by reference to the radiograph; a well-collimated beam will 

leave a small unexposed area or penumbra effect at the edges of the radiograph, while a poorly 

collimated beam will produce a radiograph that is exposed over all of its area. Available data, 

including direct beam measurements, indicate that X-ray beams used at Hanford were well collimated 

(Rising and Soldat 1959). 

3.2.5

A number of other factors affect the X-ray exposure required to obtain a proper radiograph and, 

hence, the dose to the worker. Knowledge of these factors is unnecessary for dose reconstruction 

purposes if beam measurements are available or if the primary machine characteristics of applied 

kilovoltage, time, and current are known along with the amount of primary beam filtration; however, 

Screens, Grids, and Other Factors Potentially Affecting Worker Dose

 

3. Also known as film-to-focus distance (FFD).
Effective Date: 09/16/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 9 of 34

the factors can be used as additional confirmation of the applicability of the reconstructed dose. For 

completeness, this report makes brief mention of these factors, which are tube housing, type and 

speed of film, development procedure, screens, and grids.

X-ray tubes used for diagnostic radiography are typically enclosed in protective lead or shield tube 

housings with the primary beam brought out through a port or window in the side of the housing. 

Although some reduction of the dose to the worker is achieved, largely through elimination of 

scattered radiation and improved collimation, the primary purpose of this diagnostic tube housing is 

for the protection of the operator and unexposed X-ray film and nearby individuals other than the 

worker. This issue is moot, however, because virtually all X-ray tubes, and certainly those used at 

Hanford since its inception, had protective tube housings.

The amount of exposure needed for a suitable diagnostic radiograph is in some measure a function of 

film speed and development. Fine grain emulsions produce a superior radiographic image but require 

additional exposure in comparison to fast films. Underdevelopment of films also requires additional 

exposure to achieve satisfactory radiographic quality. Intensifying screens are used in the cassette to 

intensify the radiographic effect and thereby increase film speed and reduce worker dose. Grids, 

specifically the Potter-Bucky diaphragm (colloquially known as a Bucky) are sometimes utilized for 

thick section radiography, but rarely for chest radiography except with large workers. In any case, the 

above are all factored into the technique (i.e., kVp, mA) that is used and, except in rare instances and 

a virtually complete absence of other data, are not important in dose reconstruction.

3.3 DIAGNOSTIC X-RAY DOSES TO HANFORD WORKERS, 1943 TO DATE 

For convenience and possible application to cases in which the standard Hanford protocol was not 

followed, or for generic use, Table 3-1 lists the effects of various technical factors.

Extensive review of the available documentation on the occupational medical program at Hanford 

from 1943 to the present revealed that only three diagnostic medical radiographic procedures were 

administered in connection with pre-employment or regular postemployment medical examinations: 

1. Posterior-anterior (PA) 14” × 17” chest film

2. Lateral chest film

3. 4” × 5” chest photofluorographic film

Accordingly, only doses from these three techniques were evaluated. Other radiographic 

examinations of Hanford employees that might have occurred were nonoccupational in the sense that 

they were necessitated by illness or injury and were not part of the employee physical examination 

process. Thus, there is no indication in the records that other diagnostic radiographic examinations 

were administered as part of the occupational medical program, or that radiological treatment for 

shrinkage of lymphoid tissue was ever performed on Hanford workers.

A potential problem common to all procedures relates to the conversion of exposure represented by 

ESE to absorbed organ dose, and to changes in the definition of dose and the burgeoning of 

numerous dose quantities. Over the 50 or so years since the beginning of Hanford operations, the 

quantity known today as exposure has undergone several important conceptual changes, as has the 

application of the unit of exposure, the roentgen, which in itself is obsolete. Thus, there is much 

confusion about the definition of exposure and its associated unit, the roentgen. At one time, the 

roentgen was used to quantify the dose from electromagnetic radiation and, when this proved 

confusing and inexact, was defined as exposure dose to distinguish it from the term absorbed dose, 

which was applicable to any type of radiation.
Effective Date: 09/16/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 10 of 34

Additional confusion was engendered by changes in the values of the conversion coefficients used to 

convert exposure to absorbed dose; at various times an exposure of 1 R would be equated to a soft 

tissue dose of 0.83, 0.877, or 0.93 rad. Thus, an exposure to air of 1 R would result in an absorbed 

dose of somewhat less than 1 rad (1 cGy = 10 mGy). Nonetheless, regulations applicable to Hanford 

and other DOE sites defined 1 R as exactly equal to a dose of 1 rad (10 mGy), thereby producing an 

overestimate in the reported dose or dose equivalent because dosimeters were typically calibrated 

against a field measured in R, which was numerically equated as absorbed dose in rad (Kathren and 

Petersen 1989). Further complicating the conversion of ESE in terms of exposure to absorbed dose 

is the contemporary trend to refer to X-ray intensity in terms of the quantity kerma, which is measured 

in the same units as absorbed dose. Typically, the numerical value of kerma is slightly lower than the 

corresponding value of absorbed dose. Thus, to ensure conservatism and compliance with National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) guidance document OCAS-IG-001, and to avoid 

any risk dose underestimation, 1 R of exposure was taken to be equal to1 rad of absorbed dose and 

to 1 rad (10mGy) of kerma. 

Conversion of exposure expressed as ESE was made in accordance with published conversion 

coefficients in Tables A2 through A9 of International Commission on Radiological Protection 

Publication 34 (ICRP 1982). These tables provide average absorbed organ doses for specific 

selected medical radiography procedures relative to an entrance air kerma without backscatter of 1 

Gy for various beam qualities expressed in terms of HVL of aluminum. However, the tables do not 

include all organs identified in the Interactive RadioEpidemiological Program (IREP) code. For organs 

included in the IREP but not specifically identified in ICRP Publication 34, use of the dose conversion 

coefficient for the organ identified in ICRP Publication 34 that is anatomically the closest would seem 

to be a reasonable and simple first-order approach that generally would be claimant-favorable or 

neutral. Thus, the factor for lung would be applied to all other organs within the thoracic cavity 

(thymus, esophagus, and stomach). Because an appreciable fraction of the skeleton, in particular the 

trabecular bone, which has a large surface-to-volume ratio, and the sternum, which is a primary 

location of red marrow in the adult, lies within the trunk, the factor for lung would also be applied to the 

bone surfaces and bone marrow. For organs in the abdomen (i.e., liver, urinary bladder, colon and 

uterus) the dose conversion coefficient for ovary would be used. For the eye, the analogous organ is 

the thyroid. 

Because, as discussed above, 1 R was taken to be 10 mGy of kerma, conversion could easily be 

made if the beam quality was known. Measured beam quality data were not found. However, the 

kVp and filtration were known, and an estimate of beam quality could be made from these data. 

Because for a given amount of filtration and exposure (mAs) absorbed organ dose increases as a 

function of HVL, for conservatism the upper limit on the likely beam quality was calculated and 

rounded up to match the closest value in the tables in ICRP Publication 34. For the period prior to 

January 28, 1983, beam quality expressed as HVL was conservatively estimated to be 2.5 mm Al; 

after January 28, 1983, the estimate was 4.0 mm Al. These values are somewhat greater than the 

1.75 and approximately 3.5 mm Al values that would be derived from Table A16 of ICRP Publication 

34 and, therefore, are claimant-favorable.

Tables 14 through16 list the frequency of various occupationally required X-ray procedures for 

preemployment, annual, transfer (on leaving and sometimes entry), and interval, culled from Hanford 

documents (Cantril 1946; Cleavinger 1978; Daly 1985; Fuqua 1981, Kirklin et al. 1969, Milroy 1988; 

Vails 1980). In the early years at the site, periodic X-ray examinations were relatively frequent and 

identified at-risk groups of workers received medical exams, including X-rays, at even more frequent 

intervals. For work with radiation hazards, interval exams in January 1944 were as close to 4 weeks 

as possible. By July 1945, the exam intervals were lengthened from 4 to 7 or 8 weeks. Other 

employees not working with radiation or other special hazards were examined every 3 to 6 months 
Effective Date: 09/16/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 11 of 34

(Cantril 1946). The frequency of medical radiographs was reduced to annually until 1959, and 

thereafter on a schedule dependent on age but no greater than annually. 

3.3.1

Table 3-2 summarizes salient data for the 14” × 17” PA chest radiography. As indicated in the tables, 

14” × 17” PA chest radiography was the most widely used diagnostic procedure. The dates of 

measurement refer to the dates of an actual measurement of machine output for the procedure 

specified. There is a generally decreasing trend of ESE with time, which is wholly consistent with 

what has been the general experience nationally (Gray 1993). For conservatism in determining or 

reconstructing doses and in accordance with the guidance in OCAS-IG-001, the ESE should be 

assumed to have been constant from the time of the measurement until the time of the next 

measurement. Thus, referring to Table 3-2, radiographs taken from February 4, 1998, to the present 

would have an ESE of 11 mR; those taken prior to February 4, 1998, but on or after April 22, 1997, 

would have an ESE of 17 mR. 

Doses From 14” × 17” PA Chest Radiography 

Certain aspects of the data require further explanation. The ESE for March 30, 1990, is characterized 

as “21 mR Assumed”. In fact, the results from a survey performed by the State of Washington 

indicate that the measured worker exposure from the 14” × 17” PA chest radiography procedure was 

11.7 mR. This value seemed inconsistent with the 21-mR value obtained by the State with the same 

machine and settings on November 11, 1993, and too small in comparison to the measurement of 35 

mR obtained by the State on January 21, 1988. In fact, the ratio of ESE from the 1988 and 1993 

measurements (35/21 = 1.67), was very close to the exposure in mAs (10/6.7 = 1.5) for this pair of 

measurements. Thus, for conservatism and in accordance with the guidance provided by OCAS-IG001, 21 mR was assumed to be the proper value for the March 30, 1990, measurement.

Organ Dose Calculation Methods – Posterior/Anterior Chest Films:

The organ doses for PA chest films were calculated using the exposure expressed as ESE and in 

accordance with conversion coefficients in Tables A2 through A9 of ICRP Publication 34 (ICRP 1982). 

Table 3-2, “Summary of Beam Parameters for 14” × 17” PA Chest Radiography,” provided the 

measured dose information for each period during which the PA chest films were given to Hanford 

workers. Because absorbed organ dose for PA chest radiographs will increase as a function of HVL, 

two HVL were calculated and used for dose determination. For the period prior to January 28, 1983, 

the estimated beam quality expressed as HVL was 2.5 mm Al; after January 28, 1983, 4.0 mm Al was 

used (see above for details).

Following are the methods used to calculate the dose in gray (Gy) from the Table 3-2 measured 

doses used in the dose determination for each period from 1943 to date. (NOTE: the PA ESE 

assumed for the period before 1946 were 120 mR based on experience and references from the early 

1940s): 

Before 

2/1/1946

14” × 17” PA chest X-ray with 2.5-mm Al filter and an assumed ESE of 120 mR. 

Absorbed dose in Gy determined by 120 mR/100mGy per mR = 1.2 mGy and 1.2 

mGy/1000mGy per 1 Gy = 0.0012 Gy. This value in Gy is used with Table 3-3 dose 

conversion factors (mGy per Gy air kerma for a beam quality for 2.5 mm Al HVL) to 

determine organ doses in Table 3-5 for the listed organs in ICRP Publication 34. 

Dose to ovaries and associated organs, and to the testes, were calculated from ratios 

determined from the dose factors given in ICRP 34 (1982) and measurements made 

by (Rising and Soldat 1959).
Effective Date: 09/16/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 12 of 34

2/1/46 to 

4/21/1959

14” × 17” PA chest X-ray with 2.5-mm Al filter and a measured ESE of 79 mR. 

Absorbed dose in Gy determined by 79 mR/100mGy per mR = 0.79 mGy and 0.79 

mGy/1000mGy per 1 Gy = 0.00079 Gy. This value in Gy is used with Table 3-3 DFs 

(mGy per Gy air kerma for a beam quality for 2.5 mm Al HVL) To determine organ 

doses in Table 3.6 for the listed organs in ICRP Publication 34. Doses to the ovaries 

and testes are calculated from measurements (Rising & Soldat 1959) 

4/12/59 to 

1/28/1983

14” × 17” PA chest X-ray with 2.5-mm Al filter and a measured ESE of 40 mR. 

Absorbed dose in Gy determined by 40 mR/100mGy per mR = 0.40 mGy and 0.40 

mGy/1000mGy per 1 Gy = 0.00040 Gy. This value in Gy is used with Table 3-3 DFs 

(mGy per Gy air kerma for a beam quality for 2.5 mm Al HVL) to determine organ 

doses in Table 3-7 for the listed organs in ICRP Publication 34. Doses to ovaries and 

testes are calculated from measurements (Rising & Soldat April 1959) 

1/28/1983 to 

3/30/1990

14” × 17” PA chest X-ray with 4.0-mm Al filter and a measured ESE of 35 mR. 

Absorbed dose in Gy determined by 35 mR/100mGy per mR = 0.35 mGy and 0.35 

mGy/1000mGy per 1 Gy = 0.00035 Gy. This value in Gy is used with Table 3-4 DFs 

(mGy per Gy air kerma for a beam quality for 4.0 mm Al HVL) to determine organ 

doses in Table 3-8 for the listed organs in ICRP Publication 34.

3/30/1990 to 

4/22/1997

14” × 17” PA chest X-ray with 4.0-mm Al filter and a measured ESE of 21 mR. 

Absorbed dose in Gy determined by 21 mR/100mGy per mR = 0.21 mGy and 0.21 

mGy/1000mGy per 1 Gy = 0.00021 Gy. This value in Gy is used with Table 3-4 DFs 

(mGy per Gy air kerma for a beam quality for 4.0 mm Al HVL) to determine organ 

doses in Table 3-9 for the listed organs in ICRP Publication 34.

4/27/1997 to 

2/4/1998

14” × 17” PA chest X-ray with 4.0-mm Al filter and a measured ESE of 17 mR. 

Absorbed dose in Gy determined by 17 mR/100mGy per mR = 0.17 mGy and 0.17 

mGy/1000mGy per 1 Gy = 0.00017 Gy. This value in Gy is used with Table 3-4 DFs 

(mGy per Gy air kerma for a beam quality for 4.0 mm Al HVL) to determine organ 

doses in Table 3-10 for the listed organs in ICRP Publication 34.

42/4/1998 to 

Present

14” × 17” PA chest X-ray with 4.0-mm Al filter and a measured ESE of 11 mR. Dose 

in Gy determined by 11 mR/100mGy per mR = 0.11 mGy and 0.17 mGy/1000mGy 

per 1 Gy = 0.00011 Gy. This value in Gy is used with Table 3-4 DFs (mGy per Gy air 

kerma for a beam quality for 4.0 mm Al HVL) to determine organ doses in Table 3-11 

for the listed organs in ICRP Publication 34.

3.3.2

Table 3-16 summarizes period, frequency, applicability, ESE, and organ doses for the lateral 14” × 17” 

chest radiography. Although lateral 14” × 17” chest radiography might have been incorporated into 

the pre- and continuing employment physical examinations at Hanford, lateral chest exams were not a 

regularly scheduled or standard practice and occurred on an ad hoc basis. The dose from a lateral 

14” × 17” chest radiograph is significantly greater than that from the more common 14” × 17” PA chest 

radiography procedure. All other factors notwithstanding, the ESE must of necessity be increased 

because of the greater body thickness presented laterally in comparison to PA. This means that the 

body will be closer to the X-ray tube, which will further increase the ESE. Few measurement data are 

available for lateral 14” × 17” chest radiography at Hanford. Data by Kirklin et al. (1969) indicate that 

the ESE from a lateral radiograph was 1.94 times the ESE from a PA chest radiograph, or 

approximately, twice the ESE from a PA chest radiograph. Depending on the degree of measurement 

Lateral 14” × 17” Chest Radiography
Effective Date: 09/16/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 13 of 34

error, this value could be slightly greater or smaller. Because other measured data suggest that the 

ratio of ESE from lateral and PA chest radiographs could have been somewhat greater (Cardarelli et 

al. 2002; Stanford and Vance 1955), to ensure that dose from this source was not underestimated a 

moderately conservative factor of 2.5 was assumed for the ratio of ESE from lateral to PA chest 

radiography for organ dose calculations.

Organ Dose Calculation Methods – Lateral Chest Radiography

The organ doses for lateral (Lat) chest radiography were calculated using the exposure expressed as 

ESE and were in accordance with conversion coefficients in Tables A2 through A9 of ICRP 

Publication 34 (ICRP 1982). Several of the references above support the use of a factor of 2.5 times 

the PA chest radiography dose for the lateral chest radiography dose. This factor was used to 

determine doses for lateral chest radiography for Hanford workers for 1943 to date. Because 

absorbed organ dose for lateral chest radiographs increases as a function of the HVL of the Al filter 

used, two HVLs were calculated and used for dose determination. For the period prior to January 28, 

1983, the estimated beam quality being expressed as HVL was 2.5 mm Al; after January 28, 1983, 

the estimate was 4.0 mm Al.

Following are the methods used to calculate the dose in Gy from the Table 3-2 measured doses that 

are used in the dose determination for each period from 1943 to date. (NOTE: The lateral dose used 

for the period before 1946 is 2.5 times the 120-mR PA assumed ESE, or 300 mR for the lateral chest 

radiography dose): 

Before 

2/1/1946

14” × 17” Lat chest X-ray with 2.5-mm Al filter and an assumed ESE of 300 mR. 

Absorbed dose in Gy determined by 300 mR/100mGy per mR = 3.0 mGy and 3.0 

mGy/1000mGy per 1 Gy = 0.003 Gy. This value in Gy is used with Table 3-3 DFs 

(mGy per Gy air kerma for a beam quality for 2.5 mm Al HVL) to determine organ 

doses in Table 3-5 for the listed organs in ICRP Publication 34. Dose to the ovaries 

and associated organs, and to the testes, were calculated from ratios determined 

from the dose factors given in ICRP 34 (1982) and measurements by (Rising and 

Soldat 1959).

2/1/46 to 

4/21/1959

14” × 17” Lat chest X-ray with 2.5-mm Al filter and a measured ESE of 198 mR. 

Absorbed dose in Gy determined by 198 mR/100mGy per mR = 1.98 mGy and 1.98 

mGy/1000mGy per 1 Gy = 0.00198 Gy. This value in Gy is used with Table 3-3 DFs 

(mGy per Gy air kerma for a beam quality for 2.5 mm Al HVL) to determine organ 

doses in Table 3-6 for the listed organs in ICRP Publication 34. Doses to Ovaries 

and testes are calculated from measurements (Rising & Soldat 1959). 

4/12/59 to 

1/28/1983

14” × 17” Lat chest X-ray with 2.5-mm Al filter and a measured ESE of 100 mR. 

Absorbed dose in Gy determined by 100 mR/100mGy per mR = 1.00 mGy and 1.00 

mGy/1000mGy per 1 Gy = 0.0010 Gy. This value in Gy is used with Table 3-3 DFs 

(mGy per Gy air kerma for a beam quality for 2.5 mm Al HVL). to determine organ 

doses in Table 3-7 for the listed organs in ICRP Publication 34. Doses to ovaries and 

testes are calculated from measurements (Rising & Soldat 1959) .
Effective Date: 09/16/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 14 of 34

1/28/1983 to 

3/30/1990

14” × 17” PA chest X-ray with 4.0-mm Al filter and a measured ESE of 88 mR. 

Absorbed dose in Gy determined by 88 mR/100mGy per mR = 0.88 mGy and 0.88 

mGy/1000mGy per 1 Gy = 0.00088 Gy. This value in Gy is used with Table 3-4 DFs 

(mGy per Gy air kerma for a beam quality for 4.0 mm Al HVL) to determine organ 

doses in Table 3-8 for the listed organs in ICRP Publication 34.

3/30/1990 to 

4/22/1997

14” × 17” PA chest X-ray with 4.0-mm Al filter and a measured ESE of 53 mR. 

Absorbed dose in Gy determined by 53 mR/100mGy per mR = 0.53 mGy and 0.53 

mGy/1000mGy per 1 Gy = 0.00053 Gy. This value in Gy is used with Table 3-4 DFs 

(mGy per Gy air kerma for a beam quality for 4.0 mm Al HVL) to determine doses for 

the listed organs in ICRP Publication 34.

4/27/1997 to 

2/4/1998

14” × 17” PA chest X-ray with 4.0-mm Al filter and a measured ESE of 43 mR. 

Absorbed dose in Gray determined by 43 mR/100mGy per mR = 0.43 mGy and 0.43 

mGy/1000mGy per 1 Gy = 0.00043 Gy. This value in Gy is used with Table 3-4 DFs 

(mGy per Gy air kerma for a beam quality for 4.0 mm Al HVL) to determine organ 

doses in Table 3-10 for the listed organs in ICRP Publication 34.

42/4/1998 to 

Present

14” × 17” PA chest X-ray with 4.0-mm Al filter and a measured ESE of 28 mR. 

Absorbed dose in Gy determined by 28 mR/100mGy per mR = 0.28 mGy and 0.28 

mGy/1000mGy per 1 Gy = 0.00028 Gy. This value in Gy is used with Table 3-4 DFs 

(mGy per Gy air kerma for a beam quality for 4.0 mm Al HVL).to determine organ 

doses in Table 3-11 for the listed organs in ICRP Publication 34.

3.3.3

For a relatively short period beginning in March 1945, when fluoroscopic equipment was received at 

Hanford, 4” × 5” photofluorographic chest films were taken at the Site (Cantril 1946). The potential for 

high exposure from this procedure was recognized by Herbert Parker, who, citing studies done in 

1943 and 1945, noted that the ESE was about 1 R but could be as much as 2.5 R (Parker 1947). The 

measured value for ESE of 1.51 R for 4” × 5” chest photofluoroscopy (Kirklin et al. 1969) is fully 

consistent with the value of 1.53 R observed by Parker and probably a reasonably accurate 

representation of the average worker dose. However, in keeping with the principle of claimant 

favorability, the higher ratio of 1.53 was used for dose calculations.

Chest Photofluorography 

Organ Dose Calculation Methods – Chest Photofluorography

The organ doses for photofluorography chest radiography were determined using a measured ESE 

value of 1.53 R for 4” × 5”chest photofluorography (Kirklin et al.1969). Organ doses were calculated 

using the exposure expressed as ESE and were made in accordance with conversion coefficients in 

Tables A2 through A9 of ICRP Publication 34 (ICRP 1982). These tables list organ doses based on 

an SID of 183 cm for chest radiography. Photofluorography was accomplished with an SID of 40 

inches or 102 cm. Given the geometric considerations regarding divergence of the beam as 

discussed in ICRP Publication 34 (pp. 23ff), this difference in distance would have a negligible effect 

on organ doses and, therefore, the values listed in Tables A2 to A9 are appropriate for chest 

photofluorography. Because absorbed organ dose for radiographs are a function of beam quality, an 

HVL of 2.5 mm Al was used for dose determination. 

The following method was used to calculate the dose in Gy for the period from March 1945 to January 

31, 1962, using the measured dose of 1.53 R. 
Effective Date: 09/16/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 15 of 34

March 1945 to 

1/31/62

4” × 5” photofluorographic chest X-ray with 2.5-mm Al filter and a measured ESE 

of 1.53 R. Absorbed dose in Gy determined by 1530 mR/100 mGy per mR = 

15.30 mGy and 15.30 mGy/1000 mGy per 1 Gy = 0.0153 Gy. This value in Gy is 

used with Table 3-12.DFs (mGy per Gy air kerma for a beam quality for 2.5 mm Al 

HVL) to determine organ doses in Table 3-13 for the listed organs in ICRP 

Publication 34. Doses to ovaries and testes are calculated from measurements 

(Rising & Soldat 1959).

3.4 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS FOR HANFORD RADIOGRAPHY DOSES

Error (deviation from the correct, true, or conventionally accepted value of a quantity) and uncertainty 

(defined in terms of the potential range of a stated, measured, assumed, or otherwise determined 

value of a quantity) provide an indication of the confidence of the dose estimates. Error implies 

knowledge of what the correct or actual value is, which is, of course, not known. Therefore, the more 

appropriate factor is uncertainty, which is expressed in terms of a confidence level (e.g., 99% -- that 

the correct or true value, although not actually known, has a 99% probability of falling within the range 

cited) and includes both precision or reproducibility of the measurement and accuracy, or how close 

the measurement or estimate of dose comes to the actual or correct value.

In theory a large number of factors can introduce uncertainties or affect the X-ray machine output 

intensity and dose to the worker. However, because X-ray doses at Hanford were derived largely 

from actual beam intensity measurements, in practice only five factors can be reasonably considered 

to have an impact on dose uncertainty: 

1. Measurement error

2. Variation in applied kilovoltage

3. Variation in beam current

4. Variation in exposure time

5. Distance from the worker to the source of the X-rays (SSD)

The influence of such other factors as use of screens, grids, reciprocity failure, film speed, and 

development, while potentially variable, would not affect the beam output intensity.

X-ray doses at Hanford were largely derived from actual measurement of X-ray machine output with 

R-meters or similar ionization chamber devices; if properly calibrated and used, these typically and 

historically have had an uncertainty of + 2% for photon energies below 400 keV (Kathren and Larson 

1969). Although more recent versions of these instruments might provide a somewhat smaller 

uncertainty, perhaps on the order of + 1% (NBS 1985, 1988), for conservatism, the uncertainty range 

of + 2% should be applied to measurements of X-ray intensity at Hanford.

Theoretically, for a given set of machine settings and parameters, X-ray output should be constant 

and unvarying. However, this is not true in practice, although output is essentially constant unless 

focal spot loading occurs, as might be the case when the power rating of the machine is exceeded. It 

is unlikely that power ratings were ever exceeded because such an event would be difficult to achieve 

in practice and could result in damage to the X-ray tube. However, even with the use of constant 

voltage transformers to control line voltages, slight variations might occur in line voltage input or other 

internal voltages, which in turn could alter the kVp of the output beam. In general, for a given kVp 

setting, variation in kVp falls within + 5% of the machine setting (Seibert et al. 1991). As noted above, 

beam intensity is approximately proportional to the 1.7 power of the kilovoltage; this translates to an 

uncertainty of approximately ± 8.6% with respect to output beam intensity in the 80 to 100 kVp used 

for diagnostic radiographs at Hanford. For conservatism, this is rounded up to + 9%.
Effective Date: 09/16/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 16 of 34

Similarly slight variations in tube current are normal; as a tube ages, or heats up from use, current can 

change and typically will drop. With all other factors constant, beam intensity will be reduced in direct 

proportion to the change in tube current. Typically, the reduction in beam output from current 

variation is not more than a few percent under normal operating conditions; large decreases are 

readily detectable and result in maintenance on the machine to restore the output or, as a temporary 

measure, an increase in the current or kVp to provide the necessary intensity for proper radiography. 

There is no evidence to suggest that such temporary measures were ever necessary or applied at 

Hanford. For a given kVp setting, the output of the beam is a function of the tube current, which in 

turn is measured by a milliammeter, which measures average tube current. The measurement is 

subject to uncertainties; there might be minor changes in output as the tube heats from normal use. 

Because these variations are typically small, the estimated uncertainty in beam output attributable to 

current variation is + 5%. 

Another parameter that has potential to affect the dose from a diagnostic radiograph, perhaps 

significantly, relates to the time of exposure. A full wave rectified machine produces 120 pulses per 

second of X-rays. In an exposure time of 1/20 of a second, only six pulses would result. A small error 

in the timer that resulted in a change of only + 1 pulse would correspondingly affect the output by +

17%; for an exposure time of 1/30 of a second, the change in output corresponding to a deviation of +

1 pulse is + 25%. Early mechanical timers were notoriously inaccurate; accuracy improved 

significantly with the introduction of electronic timers. Other than measurements of reproducibility 

made in the late 1980s and beyond by the State of Washington, there are no data on which to base 

an evaluation of the accuracy and precision of the timers on Hanford X-ray machines. The 

measurements made by the State suggest that the timers, and indeed the entire X-ray output, were 

fairly constant. However, for conservatism, the assumed uncertainty in beam output attributable to 

timers has an upper limit of + 25%. 

The final factor likely to affect worker dose relates to distance from the source of the X-rays, which is 

a determinant of the entrance skin exposure. For a given individual, the SSD will be determined 

largely by the body thickness of the worker and the accuracy of the positioning. For a typical worker, 

the estimated variation in SSD is no more than a few centimeters, with an upper limit of perhaps 7.5 

cm. Using inverse square, this indicates an uncertainty of + 10% from this source.

There are two approaches to determine the combined uncertainty from the five potential sources of 

dose uncertainty listed above. The first, and most conservative in that it gives the greatest range, 

would be to assume that the uncertainties are additive, which would give an uncertainty range of 2 + 9 

+5 + 25 + 10 = + 51%. However, a more reasonable approach would be to assume that the 

uncertainties are in fact random, and to compute the statistical root mean square (RMS) value. The 

RMS value is simply the square root of the sum of the squares, and computes as + 28.9%. Rounding 

this up to + 30% would seem to provide an adequate and suitably conservative indication of 

uncertainty. Thus, for an individual ESE or derived organ dose, an uncertainty of + 30% can be 

assumed; for further conservatism it might be appropriate to assume that errors are all positive, and 

only + 30% should be used. 
Effective Date: 09/16/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 17 of 34

Table 3-1. Relationship of beam intensity and various technical factors. Parameter Units Relationship with Intensity

Applied voltage kVp Intensity proportional to 1.7 power of kVp

Tube current mA Linear

Exposure time s Linear

Filtration mm Al Intensity decreases by ~40% for each additional mm Al

Worker Size

(chest thickness) 

25-27 mm

> 27 mm

Dose increased by factor of 1.5

Dose increased by factor of 2

Distance d Approximately inverse square relations (1/d2)

Uncertainty + 30 % Assume all errors are positive, + 30% should be used
Effective Date: 

09/16/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 18 of 34

Table 3-2. Summary of beam parameters for 14" × 17 " PA chest radiography. Date Measured 10/18/1999 2/04/98 4/22/1997 11/11/1993 3/30/1990 1/21/1988 1/20/1988 1/28/1983 4/12/1959 2/1/1946 Before 2/46

Procedure Chest PA 

14"×17"

Chest PA 

14"×17"

Chest PA 

14"×17"

Chest PA 

14"×17"

Chest PA 

14"×17"

Chest PA 

14"×17"

Chest PA 

14"×17"

Chest PA 

14"×17"

Chest PA 

14"×17"

Chest PA 

14"×17"

Chest PA 

14"×17"

Machine type XMA - 360 XMA - 360 CONXI Type 12 CONX Type 12 CONX Type 

12

CONX Type 12 CONX Type 12 G.E. DXR 750 Unknown Unknown Unknown

Machine settings kVp: 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 100 80 80 Unknown

mA 300 300 300 200 200 200 100 200 300 500 Unknown

Exposure time 1/60 sec 1/60 sec 1/30 sec 1/30 sec 1/30 sec 1/20 sec 1/10 sec 1/20 sec 1/30 sec 1/20 sec Unknown

mAs 5 5 10 6.7 6.7 10 10 10 10 25 Unknown

Added filter 2.7 mm 2.7 mm 2.5 mm 2.5 mm 2.5 mm 2.5 mm 2.5 mm 2.5 mm 1.5 mm 1.5 mm 1.5 mm

Filtration used for calcs. 4.0 mm 4.0 mm 4.0 mm 4.0 mm 4.0 mm 4.0 mm 4.0 mm 2.5 mm 2.5 mm 2.5 mm 2.5 mm

Source to skin distance 72" 72" 72 " 72 " 72 " 72 " 72 " 72 " 72 " 72 " 72 "

Entrance skin exposure 11 mR 11 mR 17 mR 21mR 21 mR 

(Assumed)

35 mR 35 mR 35 mR 40 mR 79 mR 120 mR

mR/mAs 2.2 2.2 1.7 3.3 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.5 4 3.2 Unknown

Date range 2/98 to date 4/97 to 2/98 3/90 to 4/97 1/83 to 3/90 4/59 to 1/83 2/46 to 4/59

Reference Washington 

State Dept. of 

Health 

Measurement

Washington 

State Dept. of 

Health 

Measurement

Washington 

State Dept. of 

Health 

Measurement

Washington 

State Dept. of 

Health 

Measurement

Measured at 

11.7 mR by 

State. The 

1993 value 

used as it 

was higher 

for same 

settings& 

machine. 

Washington 

State Dept. Of 

Health 

Measurement

Washington 

State Dept. of 

Health 

Measurement

Kathren to Heid 

memorandum 

Dated 1/28/83

Rising & 

Soldat letter 

to Norwood 

dated 

4/30/59

Mancuso et 

al. Dated 

1966

Based on 

experience & 

references of 

early 1940s 

x-ray dose. 

Assumed for 

Hanford.
Effective Date: 09/16/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 19 of 34

Table.3- 3. Average absorbed chest X-ray dose (mGy) for selected organs for 1 Gy entrance kerma 

(air kerma without backscatter) for a beam quality of 2.5 mm aluminum (HVL).

a

Organ View

Source-image 

distance(cm) Image receptor size (cm)

Dose conversion factor 

(mGy per Gy air kerma) 

(beam quality 2.5 mm aluminum HVL)

Thyroid PA 183 35.6 × 43.2 32

Lat. 183 35.6 × 43.2 115

Ovaries PA 183 35.6 × 43.2 1

Lat. 183 35.6 × 43.2 0.6

Testes PA 183 35.6 × 43.2 0.01

Lat. 183 35.6 × 43.2 0.1

Lungs (male) PA 183 35.6 × 43.2 419

Lat. 183 35.6 × 43.2 193

Lungs (female) PA 183 35.6 × 43.2 451

Lat. 183 35.6 × 43.2 220

Breast PA 183 35.6 × 43.2 49

Lat. 183 35.6 × 43.2 255

Uterus PA 183 35.6 × 43.2 1.3

Lat. 183 35.6 × 43.2 0.6

Bone marrow (male) PA 183 35.6 × 43.2 92

Lat. 183 35.6 × 43.2 37

Bone marrow (female) PA 183 35.6 × 43.2 86

Lat. 183 35.6 × 43.2 29

Total body (male) PA 183 35.6 × 43.2 131

Lat. (b) 183 35.6 × 43.2 64

Total body (female) PA 183 35.6 × 43.2 118

Lat. 183 35.6 × 43.2 60

a. Dose conversion factors from Tables A.2 through A.9 (ICRP 1982).

b. The values for lateral x-rays in Table A9 of ICRP (1982) for the 2.5-mm Al HVL beam quality appear to be switched. All other values 

show a higher total body dose for male relative to female. The female-male dose factors for 2.5-mm Al HVL were changed to agree 

with the factors listed for other HVLs.
Effective Date: 09/16/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 20 of 34

Table 3-4. Average absorbed chest X-ray dose (mGy) for selected organs for 1 Gy entrance kerma 

(air kerma without backscatter) for a beam quality of 4.0 mm aluminum (HVL).

(a)

Organ View

Source-image 

distance (cm) Image receptor size (cm)

Dose conversion factor 

(mGy per Gy air kerma)

(beam quality 4.0 mm of aluminum HVL)

Thyroid PA 183 35.6 × 43.2 78

Lat. 183 35.6 × 43.2 164

Ovaries PA 183 35.6 × 43.2 5.2

Lat. 183 35.6 × 43.2 2.5

Testes PA 183 35.6 × 43.2 0.01

Lat. 183 35.6 × 43.2 0.1

Lungs (male) PA 183 35.6 × 43.2 628

Lat. 183 35.6 × 43.2 313

Lungs (female) PA 183 35.6 × 43.2 674

Lat. 183 35.6 × 43.2 351

Breast PA 183 35.6 × 43.2 116

Lat. 183 35.6 × 43.2 343

Uterus PA 183 35.6 × 43.2 5.2

Lat. 183 35.6 × 43.2 2.1

Bone marrow (male) PA 183 35.6 × 43.2 178

Lat. 183 35.6 × 43.2 76

Bone marrow (female) PA 183 35.6 × 43.2 172

Lat. 183 35.6 × 43.2 59

Total body (male) PA 183 35.6 × 43.2 192

Lat. 183 35.6 × 43.2 106

Total body (female) PA 183 35.6 × 43.2 178

Lat. 183 35.6 × 43.2 99

a. Dose conversion Factors from Tables A.2 through A.9 (ICRP 1982).
Effective Date: 09/16/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 21 of 34

Table 3-5. Organ dose estimates for Hanford chest radiographs before 2/1/1946. 

Organ View Organ dose (mGy) Organ dose (rem)

Thyroid PA 3.84E-02 3.84E-03

Lat. 3.45E-01 3.45E-02

Ovaries (a) PA 2.60E-02 2.60E-03

Lat. 2.93E-02 2.93E-03

Testes (a) PA 7.47E-04 7.47E-05

Lat. 1.31E-04 1.31E-05

Lungs (male) PA 5.03E-01 5.03E-02

Lat. 5.79E-01 5.79E-02

Lungs (female) PA 5.41E-01 5.41E-02

Lat. 6.60E-01 6.60E-02

Breast PA 5.88E-02 5.88E-03

Lat. 7.65E-01 7.65E-02

Uterus PA 1.56E-03 1.56E-04

Lat. 1.80E-03 1.80E-04

Bone marrow (male) PA 1.10E-01 1.10E-02

Lat. 1.11E-01 1.11E-02

Bone marrow (female) PA 1.03E-01 1.03E-02

Lat. 8.70E-02 8.70E-03

Total body (male) PA 1.57E-01 1.57E-02

Lat. 1.92E-01 1.92E-02

Total body (female) PA 1.42E-01 1.42E-02

Lat. 1.80E-01 1.80E-02

a. Doses were calculated from measurements (Rising and Soldat 1959). 

Table 3-6. Organ dose estimates for Hanford chest radiographs from 2/1/46 to 4/12/59 

Organ View Organ Dose (mGy) Organ Dose (rem)

Thyroid PA 2.53E-02 2.53E-03

Lat. 2.28E-01 2.28E-02

Ovaries (a) PA 1,71E-02 1.71E-03

Lat. 1.95E-02 1.95E-03

Testes (a) PA 5.79E-04 5.79E-05

Lat. 6.63E-04 6.63E-05

Lungs (male) PA 3.31E-01 3.31E-02

Lat. 3.82E-01 3.82E-02

Lungs (female) PA 3.56E-01 3.56E-02

Lat. 4.36E-01 4.36E-02

Breast PA 3.87E-02 3.87E-03

Lat. 5.05E-01 5.05E-02

Uterus PA 1.03E-03 1.03E-04

Lat. 1.19E-03 1.19E-04

Bone marrow (male) PA 7.27E-02 7.27E-03

Lat. 7.33E-02 7.33E-03

Bone marrow (female) PA 6.79E-02 6.79E-03

Lat. 5.74E-02 5.74E-03

Total body (male) PA 1.03E-01 1.03E-02

Lat. 1.27E-01 1.27E-02

Total body (female) PA 9.32E-02 9.32E-03

Lat. 1.19E-01 1.19E-02

a. Doses were calculated from measurements (Rising and Soldat 1959).
Effective Date: 09/16/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 22 of 34

Table 3-7. Organ dose estimates for Hanford chest radiographs from 4/12/59 to 1/28/83. 

Organ View Organ dose (mGy) Organ dose (rem)

Thyroid PA 1.28E-02 1.28E-03

Lat. 1.15E-01 1.15E-02

Ovaries (a) PA 8.67E-03 8.67E-04

Lat. 1.31E-02 1.31E-03

Testes (a) PA 2.93E-04 2.93E-05

Lat. 4.42E-04 4.42E-05 

Lungs (male) PA 1.68E-01 1.68E-02

Lat. 1.93E-01 1.93E-02

Lungs (female) PA 1.80E-01 1.80E-02

Lat. 2.20E-01 2.20E-02

Breast PA 1.96E-02 1.96E-03

Lat. 2.55E-01 2.55E-02

Uterus PA 5.20E-04 5.20E-05

Lat. 6.00E-04 6.00E-05

Bone marrow (male) PA 3.68E-02 3.68E-03

Lat. 3.70E-02 3.70E-03

Bone marrow (female) PA 3.44E-02 3.44E-03

Lat. 2.90E-02 2.90E-03

Total body (male) PA 5.24E-02 5.24E-03

Lat. 6.40E-02 6.40E-03

Total body (female) PA 4.72E-02 4.72E-03

Lat. 6.00E-02 6.00E-03

a. Doses were calculated from measurements (Rising and Soldat 1959).

Table 3-8. Organ dose estimates for Hanford chest radiographs from 1/28/83 to 3/30/90. 

Organ View Organ dose (mGy) Organ dose (rem)

Thyroid PA 2.73E-02 2.73E-03

Lat. 1.44E-01 1.44E-02

Ovaries PA 1.82E-03 1.82E-04

Lat. 2.20E-03 2.20E-04

Testes PA 3.50E-06 3.50E-07

Lat. 8.80E-05 8.80E-06

Lungs (male) PA 2.20E-01 2.20E-02

Lat. 2.75E-01 2.75E-02

Lungs (female) PA 2.36E-01 2.36E-02

Lat. 3.09E-01 3.09E-02

Breast PA 4.06E-02 4.06E-03

Lat. 3.02E-01 3.02E-02

Uterus PA 1.82E-03 1.82E-04

Lat. 1.85E-03 1.85E-04

Bone Marrow (male) PA 6.23E-02 6.23E-03

Lat. 6.69E-02 6.69E-03

Bone Marrow (female) PA 6.02E-02 6.02E-03

Lat. 5.19E-02 5.19E-03

Total Body (male) PA 6.72E-02 6.72E-03

Lat. 9.33E-02 9.33E-03

Total Body (female) PA 6.23E-02 6.23E-03

Lat. 8.71E-02 8.71E-03
Effective Date: 09/16/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 23 of 34

Table 3-9. Organ dose estimates for Hanford chest radiographs from 3/30/90 to 4/22/97. 

Organ View Organ dose (mGy) Organ dose (rem)

Thyroid PA 1.64E-02 1.64E-03

Lat. 8.69E-02 8.69E-03

Ovaries PA 1.09E-03 1.09E-04

Lat. 1.33E-03 1.33E-04

Testes PA 2.10E-06 2.10E-07

Lat. 5.30E-05 5.30E-06

Lungs (male) PA 1.32E-01 1.32E-02

Lat. 1.66E-01 1.66E-02

Lungs (female) PA 1.42E-01 1.42E-02

Lat. 1.86E-01 1.86E-02

Breast PA 2.44E-02 2.44E-03

Lat. 1.82E-01 1.82E-02

Uterus PA 1.09E-03 1.09E-04

Lat. 1.11E-03 1.11E-04

Bone marrow (male) PA 3.74E-02 3.74E-03

Lat. 4.03E-02 4.03E-03

Bone marrow (female) PA 3.61E-02 3.61E-03

Lat. 3.13E-02 3.13E-03

Total body (male) PA 4.03E-02 4.03E-03

Lat. 5.62E-02 5.62E-03

Total body (female) PA 3.74E-02 3.74E-03

Lat. 5.25E-02 5.25E-03

Table 3-10. Organ dose estimates for Hanford chest radiographs from 4/22/97 to 2/4/98. 

Organ View Organ dose (mGy) Organ dose (rem)

Thyroid PA 1.33E-02 1.33E-03

Lat. 7.05E-02 7.05E-03

Ovaries PA 8.84E-04 8.84E-05

Lat. 1.08E-03 1.08E-04

Testes PA 1.70E-06 1.70E-07

Lat. 4.30E-05 4.30E-06

Lungs (male) PA 1.07E-01 1.07E-02

Lat. 1.35E-01 1.35E-02

Lungs (female) PA 1.15E-01 1.15E-02

Lat. 1.51E-01 1.51E-02

Breast PA 1.97E-02 1.97E-03

Lat. 1.47E-01 1.47E-02

Uterus PA 8.84E-04 8.84E-05

Lat. 9.03E-04 9.03E-05

Bone marrow (male) PA 3.03E-02 3.03E-03

Lat. 3.27E-02 3.27E-03

Bone marrow (female) PA 2.92E-02 2.92E-03

Lat. 2.54E-02 2.54E-03

Total body (male) PA 3.26E-02 3.26E-03

Lat. 4.56E-02 4.56E-03

Total body (female) PA 3.03E-02 3.03E-03

Lat. 4.26E-02 4.26E-03
Effective Date: 09/16/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 24 of 34

Table 3-11. Organ dose estimates for Hanford chest radiographs from 2/4/98 to present. 

Organ View Organ dose (mGy) Organ dose (rem)

Thyroid PA 8.58E-03 8.58E-04

Lat. 4.59E-02 4.59E-03

Ovaries PA 5.72E-04 5.72E-05

Lat. 7.00E-04 7.00E-05

Testes PA 1.10E-06 1.10E-07

Lat. 2.80E-05 2.80E-06

Lungs (male) PA 6.91E-02 6.91E-03

Lat. 8.76E-02 8.76E-03

Lungs (female) PA 7.41E-02 7.41E-03

Lat. 9.83E-02 9.83E-03

Breast PA 1.28E-02 1.28E-03

Lat. 9.60E-02 9.60E-03

Uterus PA 5.72E-04 5.72E-05

Lat. 5.88E-04 5.88E-05

Bone marrow (male) PA 1.96E-02 1.96E-03

Lat. 2.13E-02 2.13E-03

Bone marrow (female) PA 1.89E-02 1.89E-03

Lat. 1.65E-02 1.65E-03

Total body (male) PA 2.11E-02 2.11E-03

Lat. 2.97E-02 2.97E-03

Total body (female) PA 1.96E-02 1.96E-03

Lat. 2.77E-02 2.77E-03

Table 3-12. Average absorbed dose from chest photofluorography (mGy) for selected organs for 1 

Gy entrance kerma (air kerma without backscatter) for a beam quality of 2.5 mm aluminum (HVL).

a

Organ View

Source-Image 

Distance(cm) Image Receptor Size (cm)

Dose conversion factor 

(mGy per Gy air kerma) 

(beam quality 2.5 mm aluminum HVL)

Thyroid Photo 102 10.2 × 12.7 32

Ovaries Photo 102 10.2 × 12.7 1

Testes Photo 102 10.2 × 12.7 0.01

Lungs (male) Photo 102 10.2 × 12.7 419

Lungs (female) Photo 102 10.2 × 12.7 451

Breast Photo 102 10.2 × 12.7 49

Uterus Photo 102 10.2 × 12.7 1.3

Bone marrow (male) Photo 102 10.2 × 12.7 92

Bone marrow (female) Photo 102 10.2 × 12.7 86

Total body (male) Photo 102 10.2 × 12.7 131

Total body (female) Photo 102 10.2 × 12.7 118

a. Dose conversion Factors from Tables A.2 through A.9, ICRP Publication 34 (1982).
Effective Date: 09/16/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 25 of 34

Table 3-13. Organ dose estimates for Hanford photofluorography March 1945 to 1/31/1962. 

Organ View Organ dose (mGy) Organ dose (rem)

Thyroid Photo 4.90E-01 4.90E-02

Ovaries (a) Photo 6.85E-02 6.85E-03

Testes (a) Photo 4.80E-03 4.80E-04

Lungs (male) Photo 6.41E+00 6.41E-01

Lungs (female) Photo 6.90E+00 6.90E-01

Breast Photo 7.50E-01 7.50E-02

Uterus Photo 1.99E-02 1.99E-03

Bone marrow (male) Photo 1.41E+00 1.41E-01

Bone marrow (female) Photo 1.32E+00 1.32E-01

Total body (male) Photo 2.00E+00 2.00E-01

Total body (female) Photo 1.81E+00 1.81E-01

a. Ovaries and associated organ doses and testes doses for Before 2/1/1946 – 1/28/83 were calculated based on 

measurements (Rising and Soldat 1959). 
Effective Date: 

09/16/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 26 of 34

Table 3-14. Summary of parameters and organ doses for Hanford 14" × 17" PA chest radiography. 

Time 

period Frequency Applicability

PA Chest mR

ESE(a) 

Organ doses (rem) from 14" × 17" PA chest radiography

Thyroid (d) Ovaries (d) Testes (d) Lungs (d) Breast (d)

Uterus 

(Embryo) (d)

Bone 

marrow (d) WB (d) Remainder

Before Entrance Male Male Male Male

2/1/1946 Exit 5.03E-02 1.10E-02 1.57E-02 1.57E-02

Annual Female Female Female Female

All 120 3.84E-03 2.60E-03 (e) 7.47E-05 (e) 5.41E-02 5.88E-03 1.56E-04 1.03E-02 1.42E-02 1.42E-02

2/1/46 to Entrance Male Male Male Male

4/12/1959 Exit 3.31E-02 7.27E-03 1.03E-02 1.03E-02

Annual Female Female Female Female

All 79 2.53E-03 1.71E-03 5.79E-05 3.56E-02 3.87E-03 1.03E-04 6.79E-03 9.32E-03 9.32E-03

4/12/59 to Entrance(c) 

1/28/1983 Exit Over 50 

Annual(b) years old 

Biennial(b) 40-49 Male Male Male Male

years old 1.68E-02 3.68E-03 5.24E-03 5.24E-03

Every 3rd Under 40 Female Female Female Female

year(b) years old 40 1.28E-03 8.67E-04 2.93E-05 1.80E-02 1.96E-03 5.20E-05 3.44E-03 4.72E-03 4.72E-03

1/28/83 to Biennial Over 50 

3/30/1990 years old

Every 3rd 

year

40-49 Male Male Male Male

years old 2.20E-02 6.23E-03 6.72E-03 6.72E-03

Every 5th Under 40 Female Female Female Female

year years old 35 2.73E-03 1.82E-04 3.50E-07 2.36E-02 4.06E-03 1.82E-04 6.02E-03 6.23E-03 6.23E-03

3/30/90 to Every 5th Male Male Male Male

4/22/97 year 1.32E-02 3.74E-03 4.03E-03 4.03E-03

Female Female Female Female

All 21 1.64E-03 1.09E-04 2.10E-07 1.42E-02 2.44E-03 1.09E-04 3.61E-03 3.74E-03 3.74E-03

4/22/97 to Every 5th Male Male Male Male

2/4/98 year 1.07E-02 3.03E-03 3.26E-03 3.26E-03

Female Female Female Female

All 17 1.33E-03 8.84E-05 1.70E-07 1.15E-02 1.97E-03 8.84E-05 2.92E-03 3.03E-03 3.03E-03

2/4/98 to Every 5th Male Male Male Male

present year 6.91E-03 1.96E-03 2.11E-03 2.11E-03

Female Female Female Female

All 11 8.58E-04 5.72E-05 1.10E-07 7.41E-03 1.28E-03 5.72E-05 1.89E-03 1.96E-03 1.96E-03

a. Entrance skin exposure in mR. 

b. Beginning January 4, 1982, protocol was biennial after age 45, and every 5 years for all others (Fuqua 1981).

c. Entrance and exit X-rays were provided from 1941 to mid 1990 (Vail 1990). These X-rays were not required after 1990 unless personnel were in a job class that required an X-ray or clinical needs were 

indicated. 

d. Organs identified in ICRP (1982) for dose determination from ESE associated with chest radiography.

e. Ovaries and associated organ doses and testes doses from before 2/1/1946 – 1/28/83 were calculated based on measurements doses (Rising and Soldat 1959). 
Effective Date: 

09/16/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 27 of 34

Table 3-14. (Continued) Summary of dose for IREP organs not listed in ICRP 34 (1982).

Time 

period Frequency Applicability

PA Chest 

mR ESE(a)

Organ doses (rem) from 14" × 17" PA chest radiography

Thymus Esophagus Stomach

Bone 

surface

Liver/gall 

bladder

Urinary/ 

bladder

Colon & 

rectum Eye & brain Skin (d)

Before Entrance All 120 Male Male Male Male 2.60E-03 2.60E-03 2.60E-03 3.84E-03 1.62E-01

2/1/46 Exit 5.03E-02 5.03E-02 5.03E-02 5.03E-02

 Annual Female Female Female Female

5.41E-02 5.41E-02 5.41E-02 5.41E-02

2/1/46 to Entrance Male Male Male Male

4/12/59 Exit 3.31E-02 3.31E-02 3.31E-02 3.31E-02

Annual Female Female Female Female

All 79 3.56E-02 3.56E-02 3.56E-02 3.56E-02 1.71E-03 1.71E-03 1.71E-03 2.53E-03 1.07E-01

4/12/59 to Entrance(c)

Exit Over 50 

1/28/83 Annual(b) years old

Biennial(b) 40-49 Male Male Male Male

years old 1.68E-02 1.68E-02 1.68E-02 1.68E-02 8.67E-04 8.67E-04 8.67E-04

Every 3rd Under 39 Female Female Female Female

year(b) years old 40 1.80E-02 1.80E-02 1.80E-02 1.80E-02 1.28E-03 5.40E-02

1/28/83 to Biennial Over 50 

years old

3/30/90 Every 3rd 40-49 Male Male Male Male

year years old 2.20E-02 2.20E-02 2.20E-02 2.20E-02

Every 5th Under 39 Female Female Female Female

year years old 35 2.36E-02 2.36E-02 2.36E-02 2.36E-02 1.82E-04 1.82E-04 1.82E-04 2.73E-03 4.90E-02

3/30/90 to Every 5th Male Male Male Male 1.09E-04 1.09E-04 1.09E-04 1.64E-03 2.94E-02

4/22/97 year 1.32E-02 1.32E-02 1.32E-02 1.32E-02

Female Female Female Female

All 21 1.42E-02 1.42E-02 1.42E-02 1.42E-02

4/22/97 to Every 5th Male Male Male Male 8.84E-05 8.84E-05 8.84E-05 1.33E-03 2.38E-02

2/4/98 year 1.07E-02 1.07E-02 1.07E-02 1.07E-02

Female Female Female Female

All 17 1.15E-02 1.15E-02 1.15E-02 1.15E-02

2/4/98 to Every 5th Male Male Male Male 5.72E-05 5.72E-05 5.72E-05 8.58E-04 1.54E-02

Present year 6.91E-03 6.91E-03 6.91E-03 6.91E-03

Female Female Female Female

All 11 7.41E-03 7.41E-03 7.41E-03 7.41E-03

a. Entrance skin exposure in mR. 

b. Beginning January 4, 1982, protocol was biennial after age 45, and every 5 years for all others (Fuqua 1981).

c. Entrance and exit X-rays were provided from 1941 to mid 1990 (Vail 1990). These X-rays were not required after 1990 unless personnel were in a job class that required an X-ray or clinical needs were 

indicated. 

d. Skin dose was determined by multiplying the ESE by the backscatter factors of 1.35 and 1.4 (for HVLs of 2.4 and 4.0 mm Al respectively) from ICRP (1985), Table B-8. 
Effective Date: 

09/16/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 28 of 34

Table 3-15. Summary of parameters and organ doses for Hanford lateral chest radiography. 

Time 

period Frequency

Lateral Organ doses (rem) from lateral chest X-ray

Applicability

chest mR 

ESE(a) Thyroid (d) Ovaries (d) Testes (d) Lungs (d) Breast (d)

Uterus 

(Embryo) (d)

Bone 

marrow (d) WB (d) Remainder

Before Annual All 300 Male Male Male Male 

2/1/1946 5.79E-02 1.11E-02 1.92E-02 1.92E-02

2.93E-03 (e) 1.31E-05 (e) Female Female Female Female

3.45E-02 6.60E-02 7.65E-02 1.80E-04 8.70E-03 1.80E-02 1.80E-02

2/1/46 to Annual All 198 2.28E-02 Male 5.05E-02 1.19E-04 Male Male Male

4/12/59 1.95E-03 6.63E-05 3.82E-02 7.33E-03 1.27E-02 1.27E-02

Female Female Female Female

4.36E-02 5.74E-03 1.19E-02 1.19E-02

4/12/59 to Annual Over 50 

1/28/83 years old

Biennial 40-49 Male Male Male Male

years old 1.93E-02 3.70E-03 6.40E-03 6.40E-03

Every Under 40 1.31E-03 4.42E-05 Female Female Female Female

3rd year years old 100 1.15E-02 2.20E-02 2.55E-02 6.00E-05 2.90E-03 6.00E-03 6.00E-03

1/28/83 to Biennial Over 50 

3/30/90 years old

Every 3rd 40-49 Male Male Male Male

year years old 2.75E-02 6.69E-03 9.33E-03 9.33E-03

Every Under 40 Female Female Female Female

5th year years old 88 1.44E-02 2.20E-04 8.80E-06 3.09E-02 3.02E-02 1.85E-04 5.19E-03 8.71E-03 8.71E-03

3/30/90 to Every 5th Male Male Male Male

4/22/97 year 1.66E-02 4.03E-03 5.62E-03 5.62E-03

Female Female Female Female

All 53 8.69E-03 1.33E-04 5.30E-06 1.86E-02 1.82E-02 1.11E-04 3.13E-03 5.25E-03 5.25E-03

4/22/97 to As required Male Male Male Male

2/4/1998 1.35E-02 3.27E-03 4.56E-03 4.56E-03

 Female Female Female Female

All 43 7.05E-03 1.08E-04 4.30E-06 1.51E-02 1.47E-02 9.03E-05 2.54E-03 4.26E-03 4.26E-03

2/4/98 to As Required Male Male Male Male

present 8.76E-03 2.13E-03 2.97E-03 2.97E-03

 Female Female Female Female

 All 28 4.59E-03 7.00E-05 2.80E-06 9.83E-03 9.60E-03 5.88E-05 1.65E-03 2.77E-03 2.77E-03

a. Entrance skin exposure in mR.

b. Beginning January 4, 1982, protocol was biennial after age 45, and every 5 years for all others (Fuqua 1981).

c. Entrance and exit X-rays were provided from 1941 to mid 1990 (Vail 1990). These X-rays were not required after 1990 unless personnel were in a job class that required an X-ray or clinical needs were 

indicated. 

d. Organs identified in ICRP (1982) for dose determination from ESE associated with chest radiography.

e. Ovaries and associated organ doses and Testes doses from before 2/1/1946 – 1/28/83 were calculated based on measurements (Rising and Soldat1959).
Effective Date: 

09/16/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 29 of 34

Table 3-15. (Continued) Summary of dose for IREP organs not listed in ICRP 34 (1982). 

Time 

period Frequency

Lateral Organ doses (rem) from lateral chest X-ray

Applicability

chest mR 

ESE(a) Thymus Esophagus Stomach

Bone 

surface

Liver/Gall 

bladder

Urinary/ 

bladder

Colon & 

rectum Eye & brain Skin (b)

Before Annual All 300 Male Male Male Male 

2/1/1946 0.0579 0.0579 0.0579 0.0579 2.93E-03 2.93E-03 2.93E-03

Female Female Female Female

6.60E-02 6.60E-02 6.60E-02 6.60E-02 3.45E-02 4.05E-01

2/1/46 to Annual All 198 Male Male Male Male

4/12/59 3.82E-02 3.82E-02 3.82E-02 3.82E-02 1.95E-03 1.95E-03 1.95E-03

Female Female Female Female

4.36E-02 4.36E-02 4.36E-02 4.36E-02 2.28E-02 2.67E-01

4/12/59 to Annual Over 50 

1/28/83 years old 1.31E-03 1.31E-03 1.31E-03

Biennial 40-49 Male Male Male Male

years old 1.93E-02 1.93E-02 1.93E-02 1.93E-02

Every Under 39 Female Female Female Female

3rd year years old 100 2.20E-02 2.20E-02 2.20E-02 2.20E-02 1.15E-02 1.35E-01

1/28/83 to Biennial Over 50 

3/30/90 years old

Every 3rd 40-49 Male Male Male Male

year years old 2.75E-02 2.75E-02 2.75E-02 2.75E-02

Every Under 39 Female Female Female Female

5th year years old 88 3.09E-02 3.09E-02 3.09E-02 3.09E-02 2.20E-04 2.20E-04 2.20E-04 1.44E-02 1.23E-01

3/30/90 to Every 5th Male Male Male Male

4/22/97 year 1.66E-02 1.66E-02 1.66E-02 1.66E-02

Female Female Female Female

All 53 1.86E-02 1.86E-02 1.86E-02 1.86E-02 1.33E-04 1.33E-04 1.33E-04 8.69E-03 7.42E-02

4/22/97 to Male Male Male Male

2/4/1998 1.35E-02 1.35E-02 1.35E-02 1.35E-02

Female Female Female Female

As required All 43 1.51E-02 1.51E-02 1.51E-02 1.51E-02 1.08E-04 1.08E-04 1.08E-04 7.05E-03 6.02E-02

2/4/98 to Male Male Male Male

present 8.76E-03 8.76E-03 8.76E-03 8.76E-03

Female Female Female Female

As Required All 28 9.83E-03 9.83E-03 9.83E-03 9.83E-03 7.00E-05 7.00E-05 7.00E-05 4.59E-03 3.92E-02

a. Entrance skin exposure in mR.

b. Skin dose was determined by multiplying the ESE by the backscatter factors of 1.35 and 1.4 (for HVLs of 2.5 and 4.0 mm Al, respectively) from NCRP (1985), Table B-8.
Effective Date: 

09/16/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 30 of 34

Table 3-16 Summary of parameters and organ doses for Hanford 4" × 5" chest photofluorography. 

Time 

period Frequency Applicability

Photofluorographic

chest ESE(a)

Organ doses (rem) from photofluorographic chest X-ray

Thyroid (c) Ovaries (c) Testes (c) Lungs (c) Breast (d)

Uterus 

(Embryo) (d) Bone marrow (d) WB (d) Remainder

March 

1945 to 

1/31/62 Annual & 

Periodic(b) All 1530 mR 4.90E-02

6.85E-03

(d) 4.80E-04 

(d)

Male

7.50E-02 1.99E-03

Male Male Male

6.41E-01 1.41E-01 2.00E-01 2.00E-01

Female Female Female Female

6.90E-01 1.32E-01 1.81E-01 1.81E-01

a. Entrance skin exposure in mR.

b. After March 1945 until June 1, 1957, some classes of workers received photofluorographic exams every 4 to 6 weeks, some received stereoscopic exams, requiring two exams for better resolution. Some 

were on a 6-month schedule if they did not work around radioactive material.

c. Organs identified in ICRP (1982) for dose determination from ESE associates with chest radiography.

d. Ovaries and associated organ doses and testes doses from before 2/1/1946 – 1/28/83 were calculated based on measurements (Rising and Soldat 1959).

Table 3-16.(Continued) Summary of dose for IREP organs not listed in ICRP 34 (1982). 

Time 

period Frequency Applicability

Photofluorographic 

chest ESE(a)

Organ doses (rem) from photofluorographic chest X-ray

Thymus Esophagus Stomach

Bone 

surface

Liver/gall 

bladder

Urinary/ 

bladder

Colon & 

rectum

Eye & 

brain Skin (c)

March 

1945 to 

1/31/62 Annual & 

Periodic(b) All 1530 mR

Male Male Male Male

6.85E-03 6.85E-03 6.85E-03 4.90E-02

6.41E-01 6.41E-01 6.41E-01 6.41E-01

Female Female Female Female

6.90E-01 6.90E-01 6.90E-01 6.90E-01 2.07E+00

a. Entrance skin exposure in mR.

b. After March 1945 until June 1, 1957, some classes of workers received photofluorographic exams every 4 to 6 weeks, some received stereoscopic exams, requiring two exams for better resolution. Some 

were on a 6-month schedule if they did not work around radioactive material.

c. Skin dose was determined by multiplying ESE by the backscatter factor of 1.35 for an HVL of 2.5 mm Al, from NCRP (1985), Table B-8.
Effective Date: 09/16/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 31 of 34

REFERENCES

BRH (Bureau of Radiological Health), 1970, Radiological Health Handbook, Revised Edition, U.S. 

Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Rockville, Maryland, p. 159.

Cahoon, J. B, 1961, Formulating X-Ray Technics, Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina, p. 

183.

Cantril, S. T, 1946, Industrial Medical Programs Hanford Engineer Works, U. S. Atomic Energy 

Commission Report MDDC – 602, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, November 15. 

Cardarelli, J., H. Spitz, C. Rice, R. Buncher, H. Elson and P. Succop, 2002, “Significance of Radiation 

Exposure From Work-Related Chest X-Rays for Epidemiological Studies of Radiation 

Workers,” Amer. J. Indust. Med. 42:490-501.

Cleavinger, L. R., 1978, “Guidelines for Diagnostic X-rays,” letter to Margery J. Swint, Hanford 

Environmental Health Foundation.

Daly, J. B, 1985, letter to T. R. Strong, Washington Department of Social and Health Services, 

January 28.

Fuchs, Arthur W, 1958, Principles of Radiographic Exposure and Processing, Charles W, Thomas,

Springfield, p. 184. 

Fuqua, P. A., 1981 Memorandum to Physicians, Physicians Assistants, December 22.

Gray, J. A., 1993, “Safety (Risk) of Diagnostic Radiology Exposures”, Chapter 4 in Radiation and 

Risk, American College of Radiology, Reston, Virginia, p. 15.

Handloser, J. S., 1951, “Radiation Doses from Diagnostic X-ray Studies,” Radiology 57:252-254.

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1982, “Protection of the Worker in 

Diagnostic Radiology,” Annals of the ICRP, ICRP Publication 34, 9(2/3):1-82.

ICRU (Fifth International Congress on Radiology), 1937, “Recommendations of the International 

Committee for Radiological Units.” Radiology 29:634.

International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU), 1998, Fundamental 

Quantities and Units for Ionizing Radiation, ICRU Report 60, Bethesda, Maryland.

Kathren, R. L., 1983, Memorandum to K. R. Heid, January 28.

Kathren, R. L., 1965, "Spectral and Output Measurements of a Wide Beam K-Fluorescence Radiator," 

in Hazards Control Quarterly Report No. 20, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Report 

UCRL-14151, pp. 1-5.

Kathren, R. L. and G. R. Petersen, 1989, “Units and Terminology of Radiation Measurement: A 

Primer for the Epidemiologist,” Amer. J. Epidemiol. 130:1076-1087.

Kathren, R. L. and H. V. Larson, 1969, “Radiological Calibration and Standardization for Health 

Physics: A Program, A Plea, and a Proposal,” Health Phys. 16:778-782.
Effective Date: 09/16/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 32 of 34

Kirklin, C. W., B. D. Nuss, K. R. Heid, F. L. Rising, F. E. Adley, and E. B. Lavelle, 1969, The AEC 

Health and Mortality Study: Its Purpose, Scope and Design and the Supporting Data Systems 

from the Hanford Operations: Retrospective and Continuing Phases of Data Acquisition, 

Unpublished study, Hanford Environmental Health Foundation, pp 140-158. Available at DOE 

Reading Room, Consolidated Information Center, Washington State University at Tri-Cities.

Magie, W. F., 1896, American Journal of Medical Science, 111:251-255.

Mancuso, T.F, B.F. Sanders and A. Brodsky. "Feasibility Study of the Correlation of Lifetime Health 

and Mortality Experience of AEC and AEC Contractor Employees with Occupational Radiation 

Exposure". Progress Report NYO - 3394-5 (1966)

Milroy, W. C., 1988, Letter to Kelly P. Cameron, Washington State, January 20.

NBS (National Bureau of Standards) 1936. X-ray Protection, National Bureau of Standards Handbook 

20. U.S. Government Printing Office Washington D.C..

NBS (National Bureau of Standards), 1949, Medical X-ray Protection Up To Two Million Volts, 

National Bureau of Standards Handbook 41, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 

D.C. 

NBS (National Bureau of Standards), 1955, X-ray Protection, National Bureau of Standards Handbook 

60, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 

NBS (National Bureau of Standards; now National Institute of Standards and Technology), 1985, 

Calibration and Related Services, NBS Special Publication 250, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Gaithersburg, Maryland.

NBS (National Bureau of Standards; now National Institute of Standards and Technology), 1988, 

Calibration of X-ray and Gamma Ray Measuring Instruments, NBS Publication 250-16, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Gaithersburg, Maryland. 

NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements), 1968, Medical X-Ray and 

Gamma-Ray Protection for Energies Up To 10 MeV, NCRP Report No. 33, Washington, D.C. 

NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements), 1985, SI Units in Radiation 

Protection and Measurement, NCRP Report No. 82, Bethesda, Maryland.

Norwood, W. D., J. W. Healy, E. E. Donaldson, W. C. Roesch, and C. W. Kirklin, 1959, “The Gonadal 

Radiation Dose Received by the People of a Small American City Due to the Diagnostic Use 

of Roentgen Rays,” Amer. J. Roentgenol. Rad. Ther. Nucl. Med. 82:1081-1097.

Olson, C.P., B. W. Trask, and E. L. Dessen, 1966, “Minor Commands,” Chapter XXXVI in Radiology 

in World War II (A. L. Ahnfeldt, K. D. Allen, E. M. McFetridge, M. W. Stein, Eds.), Department 

of the Army, Washington, D.C., p. 821.

Parker, H. M, 1947, Health-Physics, Instrumentation and Radiation Protection, U.S. Atomic Energy 

Commission Report MDDC-783. (Date of manuscript unknown, date of declassification March 

25, 1947.)
Effective Date: 09/16/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 33 of 34

Picker (Picker X-Ray Corporation), 1941, Outline of Modern X-Ray Technic, Third Edition, Cleveland, 

Ohio, p. 67.

Rising, F. L. and J. K. Soldat, 1959, “Radiation Exposures During Diagnostic Radiographic 

Examinations at Kadlec Methodist Hospital,” letter to Dr. W. D. Norwood, April 30, 1959.

Sante, L. R, 1946, Manual of Roentgenographic Technique, Edwards Brothers, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 

p. 61.

Seibert, J. A., G. T. Barnes and R. G. Gould, 1991, Specification, Acceptance Testing, and Quality 

Control of Diagnostic X-ray Imaging Equipment, Medical Physics Monograph No. 20, 

American Institute of Physics, New York.

Stanford, R. W. and J. Vance, 1955, “The Quantity of Radiation Received by the Reproductive Organs 

of Workers During Routine Diagnostic X-Ray Examinations,” Brit. J. Radiol. 28:266-273.

State of Washington, Department of Health, Radiographic Inspection Results dated 3/30/1990; 

11/11/1993; 4/22/1997; 12/18/1997; 2/4/1998; 10/18/1999. 

Taylor, L. S, 1957, “Practical Suggestions for Reducing Radiation Exposure in Diagnostic 

Examinations,” Amer. J. Roentgenology. Radium Ther. Nucl Med. 78:983-987.

Trout, E. D., J. P. Kelley, and G. A. Cathey, 1952, “Use of Filters to Control Radiation Exposure to 

Worker in Diagnostic Roentgenology,” Amer. J. Roentgenology Rad. Ther. Nucl. Med. 67:962-

963.

Vails, K. W, 1980, “Memo to Examiners”, internal memorandum, Hanford Environmental Health 

Foundation.
Effective Date: 09/16/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 Page 34 of 34

GLOSSARY